HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3384 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. The present writ petitioner has been filed assailing the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner Grade- 2, (Appeal), Second State Tax, Jhansi and order dated 13.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a Private Limited Company and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 and he received an order for supply of Pan Masala for which goods were loaded on the vehicle. Goods were on its way from Kanpur to Surat but the same was intercepted on the ground that Part-B of the e-way bills was not generated. He further submits that all others documents were accompanied the goods, except Part-B of e-way bill. Thereafter, an order under section 129 of the GST Act was passed for release of the goods. Against the said order, an appeal was filed which has been dismissed without considering the material on record. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods were accompanied with all prescribed documents as tax invoice, L.R. and e-way bills only Part- B of e-way bill was not completed. He further submits that non filing of the Part-B is only a technical breach and there has been no intention to evade the tax. He also submits that no finding to the said regard has been recorded by any of the authority. He submits that merely non filing of the Part-B of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) e-way bill is only a technical error that cannot be attributed to evade the payment of tax. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the Case of Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and two others passed in Writ Tax No.1774 of 2025 vide order dated 30.04.2025. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the goods were on journey when same were intercepted, the requisite documents tax invoice, L.R. and e-way bill were available, only Part-B of e-way bill was not filled on the said premise. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited (Supra) has held that no adverse inference can be drawn for non filing of Part-B of e-way bill. The issue in hand is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited (Supra). The said fact could not be disputed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. In the view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner Grade-2, (Appeal), Second State Tax, Jhansi and order dated 13.07.2024 are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. As the petitioner has deposited the amount of penalty under protest, the same shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. September 12, 2025 Monika WTAX No. 3384 of 2025 2 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad